Author Topic: Collision Model (Read 1976 times)

SKurj · « **Reply #30 on:** June 29, 2003, 09:45:13 AM »

ccvi

Which is the enemy plane?

How do you define "shortly"?

Shortly could mean, the server would then have to monitor all clients g-loads at all times OR clients would have to keep a log of their g-loads over time, and in the case of a collision, the server would then have to consult the g-load history, and then decide whether a collision occured or not...

This method would result in long delays until damage is issued, as well as no collisions would occur in scissor type maneuvers. Players could then go for last minute HO's, pull hard into the target at the last second blasting away..

Least its a suggestion!!

Perhaps by the time the horse is just a bloody spot on the ground another solution will be found (or next generation Internet has appeared giving us all 5ms delay)

SKurj

SlapShot · « **Reply #31 on:** June 29, 2003, 09:47:47 AM »

For all of those that constantly strive to change this, how many times do you really die to collisions per day/night/week/month ?

If you are dieing a lot to this anomoly, then you might consider changing your flying habits, cause I don't think that HT will be changing his code anytime soon.

I agree with Iron .. this needs to be moved to the "Dead Horse" Forum.

Martlet · « **Reply #32 on:** June 29, 2003, 10:00:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SlapShot
For all of those that constantly strive to change this, how many times do you really die to collisions per day/night/week/month ?

If you are dieing a lot to this anomoly, then you might consider changing your flying habits, cause I don't think that HT will be changing his code anytime soon.

I agree with Iron .. this needs to be moved to the "Dead Horse" Forum.

Just because YOU feel this is a dead horse, doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate gripe. The collision model is hosed as it is currently, and there were several good suggestions given to fix it.

SlapShot · « **Reply #33 on:** June 29, 2003, 10:09:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Just because YOU feel this is a dead horse, doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate gripe. The collision model is hosed as it is currently, and there were several good suggestions given to fix it.

I disagree on all your points ...

Its not hosed and I haven't seen a good suggestion for replacement yet and yes it is a "Dead Horse" ... all these suggestions, and more, have been brought forth before in one of the 1,000,000 posts that have been written on this subject.

ccvi · « **Reply #34 on:** June 29, 2003, 10:38:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SKurj
Which is the enemy plane?

How do you define "shortly"?

I guess I didn't make this clear. Most unfair collisions happen when one of the aircrafts is suddenly quickly pulling a large number of Gs. Usually this is not done to change the course in a way to ram the other aircraft - at least not on the front end of the plane that pulls.

From the other front end the situation looks clear, no ram going to happen. Then suddenly the other aircraft changes course directly into the flight path, with no way to avoide the crash.

Shortly would mean just long enough to give time to evade the other aircraft doing something that is unharmful on his frontend but harmful to the other. A single second should be sufficient.

Quote

Shortly could mean, the server would then have to monitor all clients g-loads at all times OR clients would have to keep a log of their g-loads over time, and in the case of a collision, the server would then have to consult the g-load history, and then decide whether a collision occured or not...

Yes. Crashs are calculated on the FE, so the FE would have to keep 1 second of data for all aircraft that are close. That's not enough data to make it impossible.

Quote

This method would result in long delays until damage is issued, as well as no collisions would occur in scissor type maneuvers.

Both wrong. There would be no delay on crashs. If the FE sees both planes the same position, it already knows if the other aircraft did a hard maneuvre shortly before. So there won't be a long delay - not even a short one. Collisions during scissors can still happen, just not those where the other aircraft suddenly changes its flight path (clear on his FE) into yours (on your FE). This is exactly the situation where the crash is noones fault.

Quote

Players could then go for last minute HO's, pull hard into the target at the last second blasting away..

No, they couldn't. This would require that they know that the enemy aircraft is doing a hard maneuvre just before they see a crash. Pulling away will (which can be seen as pulling into the flight path on the other FE) will grant the other player a grace period, not the one that is pulling.

Still doubts?

Murdr · « **Reply #35 on:** June 29, 2003, 11:19:44 AM »

I really have no inhearant concern with this issue, other than stumbling along and chiming in. To the two posters that brought constructive points from past discussions, thank you for the short cut.
To the rest who seem to think that everyone who had not began posting at the boards date of inception should read the entire contents of the board before posting, . How about starting an Elietest forum since it is painfully too hard to say A and B were discussed and C was the conclusion. I see no point in seriptitously attacking the thread starter as some kind of dolt. Obviously if a gameplay issue comes back again and again and again its the fault of the next player who encounters it, and not the game.

AKIron · « **Reply #36 on:** June 29, 2003, 11:39:14 AM »

Ouch, sorry to step on yer toes there Murdr. From the date on your BB account it appears that you've been around long enough to have seen this topic appear and reappear and reappear, ad nauseaum.

It's been explained and reexplained and reexplained why the collision model is the way it is. Time to get over it and move on.

AKIron · « **Reply #37 on:** June 29, 2003, 11:47:25 AM »

Maybe a sticky thread in this forum regarding collisions, killshooter, etc... would be of some use to the relative newbies?

Then again maybe not, some just don't like the way aspects of the game work and will argue them indefinitely.

Martlet · « **Reply #38 on:** June 29, 2003, 12:20:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Ouch, sorry to step on yer toes there Murdr. From the date on your BB account it appears that you've been around long enough to have seen this topic appear and reappear and reappear, ad nauseaum.

It's been explained and reexplained and reexplained why the collision model is the way it is. Time to get over it and move on.

Or, since its still being brought up, perhaps it's time to fix it.

If it bothers you that much, feel free to excercise your right to not read the thread. Constructive criticism is welcome. Many of the posts contain good information, as well as reasons why some of the ideas I'd thought of won't work.

Your constant "stop saying that" is indicative of the brow beating you get at home, and bring to the BBS.

AKIron · « **Reply #39 on:** June 29, 2003, 03:12:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
Or, since its still being brought up, perhaps it's time to fix it.

If it bothers you that much, feel free to excercise your right to not read the thread. Constructive criticism is welcome. Many of the posts contain good information, as well as reasons why some of the ideas I'd thought of won't work.

Your constant "stop saying that" is indicative of the brow beating you get at home, and bring to the BBS.

I hear that amateur psychology doesn't pay well, you may wanna consider another line of work.

Guess I'll continue to exercise my "right" to post when and what I like here, constructive or not. You don't like it, exercise your own right to not read it.

A whine has been recorded.

It really bothered you the other night when you and Weav collided didn't it? Get over it already.

Murdr · « **Reply #40 on:** June 29, 2003, 04:16:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe a sticky thread in this forum regarding collisions, killshooter, etc... would be of some use to the relative newbies?

See, now that is constructive

AKIron · « **Reply #41 on:** June 29, 2003, 04:21:21 PM »

I thought my idea of a "dead horse" forum was constructive. Probably get a lot of activity, and little illusion of something getting changed. A place to blow off steam or beat the "dead horse". Might make too much work for Skuzzy moving so many threads there though.

Martlet · « **Reply #42 on:** June 29, 2003, 04:29:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I hear that amateur psychology doesn't pay well, you may wanna consider another line of work.

Guess I'll continue to exercise my "right" to post when and what I like here, constructive or not. You don't like it, exercise your own right to not read it.

A whine has been recorded.

It really bothered you the other night when you and Weav collided didn't it? Get over it already.

You must be confused. I never collided with weaz. Perhaps you are thinking of when Weaz rear ended you.

AKIron · « **Reply #43 on:** June 29, 2003, 04:41:11 PM »

I see it still smarts Martlet, whining only prolongs the pain.

Martlet · « **Reply #44 on:** June 29, 2003, 05:59:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
I see it still smarts Martlet, whining only prolongs the pain.

As I said, I've never even seen Weaz in MA. Getting rammed by others does smart, though. Kinda like the smarting you're experiencing, only less bleeding.